Undead, Energy Drain and Bloodlines [Archive]

Magian

07-29-2002, 10:22 PM

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by Azrai

I don't think that energy drain and bloodline strength should be connected. energy drain is some kind of life energy and the bloodline strength is some kind of mystical power.

the spectral scion is a special case, it drains bloodline because of his creature-background.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with this. Specifically I was thinking about the Magian and the Riders. They are all considered scions, the Riders in life and the Magian now. I assume the Magian has drained them of their bloodlines or perhaps allowed them to keep part of it even if smaller than it was in life. (all up to the DM of course) Even if they have no bloodline str. could they be considered bld str 0 and act as scions in respect to the bloodline drain proposal?

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by A_dark

The Spectral Scion, found int he last pages of the rjurik's book drains bloodstrength.

If you say that all vampires drain your blood, then the Vampire is not so special. Hm, well perhaps the vampires could gain only 1-2 points, while the Vampire acts like a tighmaevril.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If we consider special undead as bloodline draining monsters then how do we set it up? How does the Magian do it? What about his Riders if you allow that? The vampire I think would use his bite. Maybe a special attack could be used or perhaps as a result of his normal bite.

Also I think it would be cool for him to start a clan of vampires. He is CE so his intentions could be for power but of course and he may not forsee the holes in his plan until its too late. Of course according to BR history he would be the first vampire, but from memory I think he is a little different from the standard vampire thus maybe before the clan-thing can happen a character must slay him and absorb his bloodline in order for this kind of proginy to be produced. (the slaying and absorbtion in order to allow a transformation of the awnsheghlien)

I think that the vampire ability for drain could go something like this; the % of hp drained equals the % bloodline str. drained. Or maybe just a die roll.

Other undead with drain attack 1 point per hit. Or perhaps a die roll of some sort.

Magian

07-29-2002, 10:28 PM

Oh one thing I forgot to mention. I am thinking of these abilities not only as a drain from the victim of the attack but also as a gain for the draining monster. Thus some transferance is involved perhaps reducing the amount drained to the amount absorbed like bloodtheft.

Ariadne

07-30-2002, 11:43 AM

Originally posted by Magian

I am thinking of these abilities not only as a drain from the victim of the attack but also as a gain for the draining monster. Thus some transferance is involved perhaps reducing the amount drained to the amount absorbed like bloodtheft.
I think, the vampire does this (That's why he mentioned it to enhance his bloodline from major to great). If other monsters do this, I don't know, but I think, the spectral scion's attack acts as tighmaevril as well, so he should gain the bloodline too.

blitzmacher

07-30-2002, 09:43 PM

I know the Vampire drains bloodline strength. He bit me once...
I got better.

A_dark

07-30-2002, 09:58 PM

Yes the Vampire does it, but his bite does not transform the victim into a vampire. he is not really an undead creature, just transformed to resemble one.

The magian is different, since according to the rumours and of course the DM's choices, he is undead. However, I would not give him a blood draining ability. Energy Drain, dains the life force, Blood drain is something very different. Again, I will tell you to go look the Spextral Scion. Those are two different abilities. They can certainly coexist, so you can for instance have the special undead monster that sucks levels and bloodpoints, but not in one ability.

Bah, I will go copy the Spectral Scion :P

"A spectral scion temporarily drains 1d4 Con points with each succesful hit. When the victim reaches 0, it falls into a coma. During the coma, the SS can drain 1d6 bloodpoints per turn. When it reaches 4d6 the creature is sated and departs. The SS can drain the victim to no less than 1 point. When draining the SS is vunlerable to attacks by normal weapons taking half damage. (You need +1 or better normally) If the drained person kills the SS within 7 days his blood is restored. If the SS has drained someone else after the victim, the first victim's blood is lost forever and cannot be restored sort of spells. 10% of the drained bloodpoints are lost each day after the drain. Thus if the SS is killed 4 days after the drain, the victim will only get 60% of his blood back."

That;s it :)

The SS does not gain any blood. It actually destroys it. It wants to destroy it. It is also immune to all tighaevril and if you go to fight it with it, then it will snatch it off your hands and destroy it!! :)

The Vampire, Britter Kalt, though, does act like tighmaevrils and so did that Awnie he killed before he became what he is now. I would have Vampires gain bloodpoints, but I would not make them tighmaevril weapons. In my opinion they have to be lesser in power to The Vampire. :)

There are individuals with 0 Bloodlines. They are those that invested it to someone else. They are still blooded but with no power. There is one mentioned in the adventure in the Khinasi book, or in the Legends of the Hero Kings, he is in Serpent's servitude.

Reading some things and thinking, I believe that the actual undead cannot be blooded. They don't have blood, do they? Vampires would be an exception, but other than that, wraiths, or spectres would not have blood. The Magian perhaps is an exception or he simply is not an undead either, and falls under the same category I spoke of for the Vampire. But that is up to the DM I suppose. Plenty of room for interpreting these things any way one wants :)

I believe I have covered anything I could think of :P

Magian

07-30-2002, 11:10 PM

Alright, A_dark

I read the Spectral Scion the first time you mentioned it, to your credit. This did aid me in my original post of the thread to reconstitute my approach to this topic. I understand that energy drain and bloodline drain are separate powers. I also agree that they are as I posted earlier after the quotation from Azrai about this. But if it makes you feel better to post the explanation then good, perhaps now we can move on to what could be, and not further dwell on what is not. (according to printed materials)

Whether you agree or not that undead can have bloodlines, the Magian is undead, the Vampire is undead (I don't think he is thus I proposed he have some transformation take place or we could just ignore the undead altogether), or whether the bloodline drain/theft which is similar in reflection to that of energy drain or vampiric regeneration I have decided as a DM in my campaign to consider these options for the above mentioned characters and creatures.

With this, I submit my planned ideas to this message board for possible ideas on how to regulate them in game rules so that they may be conducted in a balanced system.

My questions are directly:

If I was to give the Magian bloodline drain ability and allow him to gain bloodline strength points from this how would you suggest it to be done?

If I was to give the Magian's Riders bloodline drain ability and allow them to gain bloodline strength points from this how would you suggest it to be done?

If I was to have something happen to the Vampire and he is transformed to an undead vampire similar to that of the classical or more familar type of vampire associated with D&D and him having his already instituted bloodline drain ability how would you set up a system for him to start creating a clan of vampires spreading his kind across the lands?

Ariadne

07-31-2002, 09:59 AM

Orginally posted by blitzmacher

I know the Vampire drains bloodline strength. He bit me once...
I got better.
Oh, there is something around with keeping fingers away from an awnsheglien...

A_dark

07-31-2002, 11:52 AM

If you really want to give the Magian a blood draining ability (dunno why you would want to make him so much more powerful tho) I suggest that with each hit he drains 1d4 points, unless the victim saves vs Death.

For the Riders, 1point per hit and again give a save.

Or perhaps 1d6 and 1d4 respectively, depending on how much more powerful you want to make him.

Blooded Vampires, should drain a specific amount of bloodpoints and be satiated. Meaning that they might have to kill 2 or three people before they are satiated, or meaning that they might not kill and individual. The individual not killed would turn into a vampire, while those that are drained completely are killed. Depending on where you set the satiation (is there such a word?) level, you basically define how many bloodpoints one should have to become a blooded vampire. Eg. A BV drains 20BPs before being satiated. A character with 15BPs will die if he is drained, a character with 25BPs will become a blooded vampire.

You can choose instead that those that I said that die, do not die, but instead, become natural vampires.

Also, I would not give the draining bloodpoints attack to all vampires but only to the already blooded ones.

Blooded vampires, would gain only 1-2 BPs, just like normal bloodtheft, and the rest would be destroyed.

The Vampire, if you choose to make adjustments, I would say that he still acts like a tighmaevril in regards to what BPs he adds to his total, and he should have a higher saturation limit. meaning if Vlad the Vampire needs 20BPs, Kalt, would need 40. It would be perhaps harder for him to be satiated, so I am not sure if this is a good idea.

What you also have to consider is what happens when they kill normal people. In that case, I would say that if you use the 20BPs, they would gain the equivalent of this amount of blood from 2-3 unblooded victims.

Then there are combinations....

I feel it is harder than it is worth it....

Magian

07-31-2002, 07:42 PM

Thanks for your in depth system on the vampires. It does seem more trouble than its worth according to all that kind of tracking.

After thinking about it, the Magian having a bloodline drain ability does make it too easy for him. Perhaps some sort of spell would work better for him along those lines.

On the vampire, since he is not considered undead according to the Blood Enemies description perhaps as a suggestion if he wanted to create another like himself he would have to sacrifice a portion of his bloodline strength in order to do so. He can replenish it if he wants, but the problem with him doing this without the undead state is the lack of control over the "vamp spawn".

Anyway just a few more ideas that came to mind since yesterday.

A_dark

07-31-2002, 08:09 PM

A spell for the magian sounds much much better :) He already has the Bloodline corruption or what it's called :)

Yes, make a spell for him, a ring even, he can afford to make any magical items he wants :P

As for your Vampire idea, it is really cool. I don't really know how Kalt would have control of his children, but perhaps he binds them through some sort of vassalage. To invest a portion of his blood to them, means that he has to perform a very special ceremony, that could perhaps create a bond between the two that cannot be broken. Sounds good to me :)

You could perhaps use a similar binding idea to the idea of the Oath, though naturally what oath the spawn would give to Kalt, would not be even close to the Oath to Ruornil, but it is still an idea, you might want to consider.

One final note, is that the spawn should not have a tighmavril bite, as we discussed (just reminding that note) and you should also figure out a way to prevent the spawn from having more bloodpoints than Kalt. It would be something really hard, but if the Spawn does nothing but feed.... well it could be done.

A final note, you have to definea time limit for these draining attacks. There are spells (restore bloodline) that can restore those Bloodpoints. What happens then?

Would the Vampire that loses his BPs know why he lost them and who took them? Would the BPs be restored regardless of the time passed after the spell was cast?

I would say no to the first and no to the second. A time frame of one or 2 weeks seems to be fair for both the victim and the vampire. Then again, if the vampire bites you and sucks you, you die.... so there is not much point in this, is there? :)

Lord Eldred

08-01-2002, 04:54 AM

Without pissing anyone off, I would ask how an undead creature is blooded if at death you lose your bloodline and therefore become unblooded.

Perhaps they become reblooded because someone vested them with their bloodline. This would be REALLY rare.

As for the THE VAMPIRE AND MAGIAN. I am not so sure they are undead. I think they are living creatures with all the qualities of being undead due to the way the curse of the Azrai has warped their bodies. Thus they both can be blooded despite the rules.

HOWEVER LET ME STATE IF YOU WANT TO DO IT DIFFERENTLY GO RIGHT AHEAD. I AM NOT A RULES LAWYER LIKE SOME PEOPLE NOT TO MENTION ANY NAMES.

geeman

08-01-2002, 05:46 AM

At 06:54 AM 8/1/2002 +0200, Lord Eldred wrote:

>I would ask how an undead creature is blooded if at death you lose your
>bloodline and therefore become unblooded.
>
>Perhaps they become reblooded because someone vested them with their
>bloodline. This would be REALLY rare.
>
>As for the THE VAMPIRE AND MAGIAN. I am not so sure they are undead. I
>think they are living creatures with all the qualities of being undead due
>to the way the curse of the Azrai has warped their bodies. Thus they both
>can be blooded despite the rules.

I agree that the Vampire or the Magian are not undead in the traditional
D&D sense. They are awnsheghlien whose bloodform has taken on a path that
mimics undead creatures. In the same way that the Spider isn`t a spider,
and the Gorgon isn`t a gorgon, the Vampire isn`t a vampire. In the case of
the Magian, however, there is the distinct possibility that s/he/it is an
extraplanar or at least extra-continental arrival to Cerilia who got a
bloodline by stealing it, or otherwise using magics (like the Chimaera) to
get one. The Magian could be a lich. One does lose one`s bloodline upon
death, but the Magian could have died, become undead and then gained a
bloodline. The Magian could easily be that really rare case of a blooded
character who isn`t born with that bloodline.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Lord Eldred

08-01-2002, 11:35 AM

OK Gary, How did he steal the bloodline. Unblooded can not commit blood theft. Someone would have had to vested him with a bloodline. Who would do that and why?

Ariadne

08-01-2002, 12:25 PM

Why a commoner can't commit bloodtheft? This does mean, no commoner can EVER get blooded. Why a commoner, who kills an awnshegh, become then one?

geeman

08-01-2002, 01:53 PM

At 01:35 PM 8/1/2002 +0200, Lord Eldred wrote:

> OK Gary, How did he steal the bloodline. Unblooded can not commit blood
> theft. Someone would have had to vested him with a bloodline. Who would
> do that and why?

Well, first of all, I don`t think he did steal his bloodline. I go with a
version of the Magian as a "typical" awnsheghlien, corrupted by his
bloodline into the form that somehow represents his personal/spiritual
image, just like all the others. It hasn`t really come up IMC that I need
to have more background material on the Magian, so I haven`t ruled as to
his specific origin, and if it does I`ll probably go with the simplest
interpretation. There are several possible origins for the Magian as a
blooded lich, however, including such things as:

1. It may not be absolutely necessary to have a bloodline in order to
commit bloodtheft. There are several examples of awnsheghlien who gained
their bloodline by committing an act of bloodtheft. The Wolf and the Boar,
for instance, gained a bloodline after an act of bloodtheft, or it is
speculated that some similar event caused their corruption. I would
suggest that has something to do with the nature of Azrai`s bloodline,
since those who`ve been described as having gained their bloodline by
bloodtheft seem to have Azrai`s derivation.

2. The Magian may be one of the last members of the Lost. (Maybe he`s the
Last Long-lived Lost Left?) The Lost gained some sort of bloodline like
power from Azrai and the ability to cast true magic. We have very little
information on what specific powers were gained by being one of the Lost,
but since it replicates the ability to cast true magic the same way a
bloodline does, it may also allow one to commit bloodtheft.

3. He might have been at Deismaar. The Magian could have gained his
bloodline _after_ having transformed into a lich and attended the
battle. The Magian was unknown on Cerilia until recently, but that just
means that he wasn`t around as The Magian. He could have existed for
centuries, he might have left the continent immediately after the battle
and travelled Aebrynis, he could have been trapped somehow by the energies
released at the battle and only recently freed himself, or he might simply
have been laying low, gathering his strength and preparing for the right
time to make his appearance on the scene in Cerilia. Granted, it would
seem strange not to note the appearance of a lich at Deismaar, but there
were some pretty powerful characters there, not to mention a few gods and
dragons, so the Magian`s presence might not figure too highly on the
billing. He may not even have been there as a combatant, but as an
observer trying to learn as much as possible about the nature of
divinity--of interest to a lich.

4. The Land`s Choice. Why must the Land`s Choice always be
benevolent? Sometimes Cerilia (not to mention the DM) needs a dark
overlord to thin out the population and act as a foil to youthful
adventurers. Who better than a vastly powerful lich? "You speak of the
one prophesied to bring balance to mebhaighl? You think it is this... lich?"

5. The Magian is also known to have done extensive research into the nature
of bloodlines itself. He`s created a spell that can corrupt the bloodline
of another character, so it`s possible that he`s also come up with a means
of stealing the bloodline of another character. Danita Kusor, the
Chimaera, is/was a much less powerful wizard than the Magian (W13 compared
to W20) but she managed to gain her bloodline after being soaked in the
same alchemical fluids she used to create the Binman--who also gained a
bloodline--after slaying the Iron Troll.

6. He could have gotten his bloodline by investiture. That doesn`t mean he
was necessarily someone`s heir (though that too is a possible explanation)
since he could have used his powerful magics to charm/enslave someone with
a bloodline and then got a priest (by coercion or he might have just found
an evil priest) to perform an Investiture to transfer his victim`s
bloodline. This person need not necessarily have been of Azrai`s
derivation, since one of the spells the Magian has access is to switch a
bloodline derivation to Azrai. Maybe the first person that spell was used
on was the Magian himself...

I`m sure there are other possibilities, and there are combinations of the
above that could be used to explain his bloodline.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

A_dark

08-01-2002, 02:16 PM

Hehe, great ideas :)

I go for the Lost, cos I like those people. Besides it makes it really interesting that Magian, the Ghul and the Raven are all so close to one another, no? :)

As for the Vampire not being undead, I said so myself and the Magian agreed :) He just looks like one.

The Magian, as Gary said, could be undead.

I also said too, that the undead cannot have bloodlines with the possible unique exception of vampires, since they do have blood. The Spectral Scion, drains blood, but he destroys it. He does not add it to his own :)

Lord Eldred

08-01-2002, 07:08 PM

Orginally posted by Ariadne

Why a commoner can't commit bloodtheft? This does mean, no commoner can EVER get blooded.

Not exactly Ariadne. Commoners can be invested with a bloodline or inherit it at someone's death but they can not commit bloodtheft.

Lord Eldred

08-01-2002, 07:18 PM

Orginally posted by geeman

At 01:35 PM 8/1/2002 +0200, Lord Eldred wrote:

> OK Gary, How did he steal the bloodline. Unblooded can not commit blood
> theft. Someone would have had to vested him with a bloodline. Who would
> do that and why?

Well, first of all, I don`t think he did steal his bloodline. I go with a
version of the Magian as a "typical" awnsheghlien, corrupted by his
bloodline into the form that somehow represents his personal/spiritual
image, just like all the others. It hasn`t really come up IMC that I need
to have more background material on the Magian, so I haven`t ruled as to
his specific origin, and if it does I`ll probably go with the simplest
interpretation. There are several possible origins for the Magian as a
blooded lich, however, including such things as:

1. It may not be absolutely necessary to have a bloodline in order to
commit bloodtheft. There are several examples of awnsheghlien who gained
their bloodline by committing an act of bloodtheft. The Wolf and the Boar,
for instance, gained a bloodline after an act of bloodtheft, or it is
speculated that some similar event caused their corruption. I would
suggest that has something to do with the nature of Azrai`s bloodline,
since those who`ve been described as having gained their bloodline by
bloodtheft seem to have Azrai`s derivation.

While it may be speculated that this is true it would not be consistent with the rulebook on bloodtheft. However, they may have forced someone to invest them with their bloodline thus committing a form of bloodtheft. OF COURSE IF YOU WISH TO DISREGARD THE RULES YOU COULD HAVE THEM COMMITTING BLOODTHEFT.

Orginally posted by geeman

2. The Magian may be one of the last members of the Lost. (Maybe he`s the
Last Long-lived Lost Left?) The Lost gained some sort of bloodline like
power from Azrai and the ability to cast true magic. We have very little
information on what specific powers were gained by being one of the Lost,
but since it replicates the ability to cast true magic the same way a
bloodline does, it may also allow one to commit bloodtheft..

Are you sure that the Lost don't really just have a bloodline that was imbued differently than all the ones gained at Deismarr? Can you point me to some readings on the Lost that would support them not being blooded? Otherwise I think you may have a reasonable explanation here.

Orginally posted by geeman

3. He might have been at Deismaar. The Magian could have gained his
bloodline _after_ having transformed into a lich and attended the
battle. The Magian was unknown on Cerilia until recently, but that just
means that he wasn`t around as The Magian. He could have existed for
centuries, he might have left the continent immediately after the battle
and travelled Aebrynis, he could have been trapped somehow by the energies
released at the battle and only recently freed himself, or he might simply
have been laying low, gathering his strength and preparing for the right
time to make his appearance on the scene in Cerilia. Granted, it would
seem strange not to note the appearance of a lich at Deismaar, but there
were some pretty powerful characters there, not to mention a few gods and
dragons, so the Magian`s presence might not figure too highly on the
billing. He may not even have been there as a combatant, but as an
observer trying to learn as much as possible about the nature of
divinity--of interest to a lich..

I really like this explanation.

Orginally posted by geeman

4. The Land`s Choice. Why must the Land`s Choice always be
benevolent? Sometimes Cerilia (not to mention the DM) needs a dark
overlord to thin out the population and act as a foil to youthful
adventurers. Who better than a vastly powerful lich? "You speak of the
one prophesied to bring balance to mebhaighl? You think it is this... lich?".

I would think the land would fear this type of blooded because they are more likely to abuse the land than to do it good. However, perhaps a swamp land or a land highly connected to the shadow world would make this choice.

Orginally posted by geeman

5. The Magian is also known to have done extensive research into the nature
of bloodlines itself. He`s created a spell that can corrupt the bloodline
of another character, so it`s possible that he`s also come up with a means
of stealing the bloodline of another character. Danita Kusor, the
Chimaera, is/was a much less powerful wizard than the Magian (W13 compared
to W20) but she managed to gain her bloodline after being soaked in the
same alchemical fluids she used to create the Binman--who also gained a
bloodline--after slaying the Iron Troll..

Again a distortion of the rules. However, this could have been a forced investiture ceremony.

Orginally posted by geeman

6. He could have gotten his bloodline by investiture. That doesn`t mean he
was necessarily someone`s heir (though that too is a possible explanation)
since he could have used his powerful magics to charm/enslave someone with
a bloodline and then got a priest (by coercion or he might have just found
an evil priest) to perform an Investiture to transfer his victim`s
bloodline. This person need not necessarily have been of Azrai`s
derivation, since one of the spells the Magian has access is to switch a
bloodline derivation to Azrai. Maybe the first person that spell was used
on was the Magian himself...

I`m sure there are other possibilities, and there are combinations of the
above that could be used to explain his bloodline.

Gary.

Wow, I think I have argued the 6th one alot so I don't think I can disagree with Gary on that one.

Ariadne

08-02-2002, 11:20 AM

Orginally posted by Lord Eldred

Not exactly Ariadne. Commoners can be invested with a bloodline or inherit it at someone's death but they can not commit bloodtheft.
Why not? In the book of regency is described, if a scion dies (through bloodtheft???), a great (or not so great) explosion followes. This would mean, anything (included plants and commoners) would get something of this power. Aren't they blooded then? Or how does this work???

geeman

08-02-2002, 02:06 PM

At 01:20 PM 8/2/2002 +0200, Ariadne wrote:

>In the book of regency is described, if a scion dies (through
>bloodtheft???), a great (or not so great) explosion followes. This would
>mean, anything (included plants and commoners) would get something of this
>power. Aren`t they blooded then? Or how does this work???

That doesn`t mean the explosion is as great as that which created
bloodlines in the first place, nor that the character`s bloodline is
dispersed to those within the blast radius. The only ways that are 100%
sure to turn a commoner into a scion is investiture/inheritance or the
Land`s Choice. Some characters have gained a bloodline in mysterious ways
(mostly awnsheghlien) but for the most part those two are the only ways
that there are rules for.

That doesn`t mean you couldn`t change it, of course, so that bloodtheft is
possible for non-scions. I believe Travis Doom`s BR 3e conversion
does. If commoners can gain a bloodline, however, I suspect scions would
become something of a hunted group of people, however, and it creates a lot
of strangeness with how regents will work at the domain level. Regents
have some measure of job security in that they are not replaceable with
99.9% of the population. If an act of bloodtheft can "create" a blooded
character, however, that opens up a whole new pool of potential rulers....

The Vos are described as having much less of a problem using investiture to
transfer a bloodline to a worthy commoner. In essence, all you need is a
willing 1st level priest who controls a temple(1) and 1GB to perform that
ceremony upon a captured or otherwise unwilling target.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

geeman

08-02-2002, 02:06 PM

At 09:18 PM 8/1/2002 +0200, Lord Eldred wrote:

>>It may not be absolutely necessary to have a bloodline in order to commit
>>bloodtheft. There are several examples of awnsheghlien who gained their
>>bloodline by committing an act of bloodtheft.
>
>While it may be speculated that this is true it would not be consistent
>with the rulebook on bloodtheft. However, they may have forced someone to
>invest them with their bloodline thus committing a form of bloodtheft. OF
>COURSE IF YOU WISH TO DISREGARD THE RULES YOU COULD HAVE THEM COMMITTING
>BLOODTHEFT.

It occurs to me that what is described in the texts regarding this
particular method of transferring a bloodline isn`t really bloodtheft, per
se. It`s something extra, usually involving the target being devoured by
the creature who winds up with the bloodline. Check out Blood Enemies
entries for the Wolf or the Sphinx. The discovery that one could commit
bloodtheft by stabbing a character through the heart came rather quickly
after Deismaar, but apparently relatively few Cerilians kill and then eat
their blooded opponents.... Could it be that devouring a blooded character
is even more effective than jabbing a ventricle? There are many examples
of this kind of sympathetic magic relationship. Many Norse myths have
heroes eating the hearts of their enemies....

Several other awnsheghlien could be hypothesized as having gained their
bloodline in a similar manner.

>Are you sure that the Lost don`t really just have a bloodline that was
>imbued differently than all the ones gained at Deismarr? Can you point me
>to some readings on the Lost that would support them not being blooded?
>Otherwise I think you may have a reasonable explanation here.

There`s not a lot of information on the Lost, so you can make up just about
whatever you like. There have been various explanations for their
powers. I personally like to think of the Lost as being like a proxy in
tMotP/Planescape, with at least one of their powers being to cast true
magic on Aebrynis. Additional powers could be things very similar to a
bloodline and blood abilities.

Also, "the Lost" as a group need not all necessarily have been empowered in
the same way. One could have his soul tied to a demon`s, another could
have the equivalent of a bloodline, a third could be a proxy, etc. "The
Lost" might be more of an explanation of their status as a minion of Azra
(as well as something of a hint about their condition/fate) than as a sort
of template.

>>He might have been at Deismaar.
>
>I really like this explanation.

Really? I thought it kind of the silliest... but I guess it does have a
kind of appeal... and if the Magian transformed into a lich before Deismaar
he would be immortal (or whatever you want to call that undead state) so
there`s no reason why he couldn`t still be around....

>>The Land`s Choice. Why must the Land`s Choice always be benevolent?
>
>I would think the land would fear this type of blooded because they are
>more likely to abuse the land than to do it good. However, perhaps a swamp
>land or a land highly connected to the shadow world would make this choice.

The Magian does have an interest in maintaining sources.... Also, this
very much depends on how/why you think the Land`s Choice works. I kind of
like the idea that Aebrynis was "awakened" by the explosion of Deismaar, so
on those occasions when the Land`s Choice occurs it is the planet
him/her/itself engaging in a little social farming of humanity. Who knows
what the purposes are behind the awakened planet? There`s some more
information regarding this interpretation in the birthright-l archives
under the title "The BR Gaia Hypothesis" available at:

http://oracle.wizards.com/scripts/wa.exe?A...D=0&H=0&O=T&T=1 (http://oracle.wizards.com/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0107D&L=birthright-l&P=R6256&D=0&H=0&O=T&T=1)

>>The Magian is also known to have done extensive research into the nature
>>of bloodlines itself. He`s created a spell that can corrupt the
>>bloodline of another character, so it`s possible that he`s also come up
>>with a means of stealing the bloodline of another character. Danita
>>Kusor, the Chimaera, is/was a much less powerful wizard than the Magian
>>(W13 compared to W20) but she managed to gain her bloodline after being
>>soaked in the same alchemical fluids she used to create the Binman--who
>>also gained a bloodline--after slaying the Iron Troll.
>
>Again a distortion of the rules. However, this could have been a forced
>investiture ceremony.

The Binman or the Chimaera could have been forced investiture? It seems
lacking several important aspects to be an investiture, and has a few
circumstances that would seem extraneous to investiture, but that seem
important to the process of gaining a bloodline....

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Peter Lubke

08-03-2002, 12:02 AM

On Fri, 2002-08-02 at 22:51, Gary wrote:

At 01:20 PM 8/2/2002 +0200, Ariadne wrote:

>In the book of regency is described, if a scion dies (through
>bloodtheft???), a great (or not so great) explosion followes. This would
>mean, anything (included plants and commoners) would get something of this
>power. Aren`t they blooded then? Or how does this work???

That doesn`t mean the explosion is as great as that which created
bloodlines in the first place, nor that the character`s bloodline is
dispersed to those within the blast radius. The only ways that are 100%
sure to turn a commoner into a scion is investiture/inheritance or the
Land`s Choice. Some characters have gained a bloodline in mysterious ways
(mostly awnsheghlien) but for the most part those two are the only ways
that there are rules for.

That doesn`t mean you couldn`t change it, of course, so that bloodtheft is
possible for non-scions. I believe Travis Doom`s BR 3e conversion
does. If commoners can gain a bloodline, however, I suspect scions would
become something of a hunted group of people, however, and it creates a lot
of strangeness with how regents will work at the domain level. Regents
have some measure of job security in that they are not replaceable with
99.9% of the population. If an act of bloodtheft can "create" a blooded
character, however, that opens up a whole new pool of potential rulers....

The Vos are described as having much less of a problem using investiture to
transfer a bloodline to a worthy commoner. In essence, all you need is a
willing 1st level priest who controls a temple(1) and 1GB to perform that
ceremony upon a captured or otherwise unwilling target.

I believe you need a WILLING target. Of course there is the "do it or
die willing". However the priests of Belinik seem to have no problems
finding bloodlines. There seems sufficient anecdotal evidence that
bloodtheft can benefit non-scions (Manticore for example), and no truly
compelling reason why not.

I`m not fond of the idea of unrestricted transferal of bloodlines
however. It could lead to a situation where players attempt to abuse it.
Like drugs in sport, once one competitor gets away with it, others see
that they need to do it also in order to compete. The concept that
players (or even that NPCs) could chop and change their bloodline at
will (given a PC realm priest) is somewhat unsettling. A bloodline
should be for life. Once you lose yours - through whatever means - you
don`t get another. Perhaps in all beings there is always a spark of
divine breath left over from their creation, and that this spark links
to the bloodline - or whatever.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Peter Lubke

08-03-2002, 12:25 AM

On Fri, 2002-08-02 at 23:19, Gary wrote:

At 09:18 PM 8/1/2002 +0200, Lord Eldred wrote:

>Are you sure that the Lost don`t really just have a bloodline that was
>imbued differently than all the ones gained at Deismarr? Can you point me
>to some readings on the Lost that would support them not being blooded?
>Otherwise I think you may have a reasonable explanation here.

There`s not a lot of information on the Lost, so you can make up just about
whatever you like. There have been various explanations for their
powers. I personally like to think of the Lost as being like a proxy in
tMotP/Planescape, with at least one of their powers being to cast true
magic on Aebrynis. Additional powers could be things very similar to a
bloodline and blood abilities.

Also, "the Lost" as a group need not all necessarily have been empowered in
the same way. One could have his soul tied to a demon`s, another could
have the equivalent of a bloodline, a third could be a proxy, etc. "The
Lost" might be more of an explanation of their status as a minion of Azra
(as well as something of a hint about their condition/fate) than as a sort
of template.

Or, of course Azrai may have imbued his favorites with a part of his
power while he was still alive - to enable them to cast arcane spells -
knowing that this power linked them to him forever. (Just another
explanation)

>>The Magian is also known to have done extensive research into the nature
>>of bloodlines itself. He`s created a spell that can corrupt the
>>bloodline of another character, so it`s possible that he`s also come up
>>with a means of stealing the bloodline of another character. Danita
>>Kusor, the Chimaera, is/was a much less powerful wizard than the Magian
>>(W13 compared to W20) but she managed to gain her bloodline after being
>>soaked in the same alchemical fluids she used to create the Binman--who
>>also gained a bloodline--after slaying the Iron Troll.
>
>Again a distortion of the rules. However, this could have been a forced
>investiture ceremony.

The Binman or the Chimaera could have been forced investiture? It seems
lacking several important aspects to be an investiture, and has a few
circumstances that would seem extraneous to investiture, but that seem
important to the process of gaining a bloodline....

Investiture may not be the only way of stealing/gaining a bloodline --
but it remains the only way for player characters. Allowing something to
happen "outside the rules of play" when it`s under the control of the DM
is not only acceptable but quite commonplace. While the Magian (as an
NPC) may have discovered methods of corrupting and stealing/draining
bloodlines -- and remember that bloodsilver was also uniquely discovered
-- a player character attempting to discover the same has absolutely
zero (0%) chance ever.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

kgauck

08-03-2002, 02:15 AM

----- Original Message -----
From: "Andreas Kjeldsen" <kjeldsen@STUD.KU.DK>
Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 8:23 PM

> To me, it seems both unfair and unrealistic to have effectively one
> set of rules for the PCs and another, more liberal one for the NPCs.
> That is definitely neither acceptable nor commonplace IMC.

Abonminations are not just another NPC, though. Each one is a unique
super-being. This is one of the reasons that so many of them were
multi-classed back under a rules set that forbade it for humans.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

AKjeldsen

08-03-2002, 02:15 AM

> Investiture may not be the only way of stealing/gaining a bloodline --
> but it remains the only way for player characters. Allowing something to
> happen "outside the rules of play" when it`s under the control of the DM
> is not only acceptable but quite commonplace. While the Magian (as an
> NPC) may have discovered methods of corrupting and stealing/draining
> bloodlines -- and remember that bloodsilver was also uniquely discovered
> -- a player character attempting to discover the same has absolutely
> zero (0%) chance ever.

So the Magian, who is listed in BE as the equivalent of a 20th level
wizard, can find such a method, but my (hypothetical) 20th level PC
wizard with access to the same resources cannot? Why not?

To me, it seems both unfair and unrealistic to have effectively one
set of rules for the PCs and another, more liberal one for the NPCs.
That is definitely neither acceptable nor commonplace IMC.

-Andreas

------------------------------------------------
Andreas Kjeldsen
Email: kjeldsen@stud.ku.dk

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Peter Lubke

08-03-2002, 02:15 AM

On Sat, 2002-08-03 at 11:23, Andreas Kjeldsen wrote:

> Investiture may not be the only way of stealing/gaining a bloodline --
> but it remains the only way for player characters. Allowing something to
> happen "outside the rules of play" when it`s under the control of the DM
> is not only acceptable but quite commonplace. While the Magian (as an
> NPC) may have discovered methods of corrupting and stealing/draining
> bloodlines -- and remember that bloodsilver was also uniquely discovered
> -- a player character attempting to discover the same has absolutely
> zero (0%) chance ever.

So the Magian, who is listed in BE as the equivalent of a 20th level
wizard, can find such a method, but my (hypothetical) 20th level PC
wizard with access to the same resources cannot? Why not?

To me, it seems both unfair and unrealistic to have effectively one
set of rules for the PCs and another, more liberal one for the NPCs.
That is definitely neither acceptable nor commonplace IMC.

As a player I see your point. As a DM though, I might like to introduce
say a vorpal sword as a unique magic item without opening the door for
the characters to copy it 1,000 times and arm 5 units of swordsmen with
vorpal weapons - on the argument that "one such item exists. Someone
must have known how. Therefore I can learn how. etc". But I try to avoid
rules that apply generally to PCs but not NPCs.

All individuals are unique. A guy that went to Uni with me, did the same
courses etc, and got about the same marks - remarked to me the other day
that he knows what object-oriented programming is - but just can`t get
his head around it - he just doesn`t understand how I do it. You could
say he learned it, but never understood it enough to be able to apply
it. Given that tainting bloodlines is 1,000 times more complex, even if
the Magian himself taught the player character it doesn`t mean that the
character would be able to understand it enough that he could apply it.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

geeman

08-03-2002, 10:45 AM

At 02:23 AM 8/3/2002 +0100, Andreas Kjeldsen wrote:

> > Investiture may not be the only way of stealing/gaining a bloodline --
> > but it remains the only way for player characters. Allowing something to
> > happen "outside the rules of play" when it`s under the control of the DM
> > is not only acceptable but quite commonplace. While the Magian (as an
> > NPC) may have discovered methods of corrupting and stealing/draining
> > bloodlines -- and remember that bloodsilver was also uniquely discovered
> > -- a player character attempting to discover the same has absolutely
> > zero (0%) chance ever.
>
>So the Magian, who is listed in BE as the equivalent of a 20th level
>wizard, can find such a method, but my (hypothetical) 20th level PC wizard
>with access to the same resources cannot? Why not?

Personally, I don`t agree with Peter`s assessment of this particular
situation. I think your (hypothetical) PC should be able to find a method
of stealing/draining a bloodline from another character. It might take an
awful lot of commitment... like he may have to become an awnshegh or
otherwise commit to some significantly evil in a way that the game
designers often assumed before 3e turns a PC into an NPC and sometimes
still do, but if NPCs can do something than PCs should have a similar shot
at it if they are willing to make the sacrifices. PCs creating tighmaevril
weapons is another thing I would let PCs do, despite the protestations of
the BR text. Doing so would require significant time and effort, but it
could be done.

I think it`s equally important to remember that when the BR setting was
written many of the prohibitions regarding what PCs could do and couldn`t
do were much more restrictive than they are in 3e or, in fact, than they
need to have been in the first place. PCs are supposed to be exceptional
characters, with abilities beyond those of normal/average people, and often
above average people. Making the process for creating things like
tighmaevril or exceptionally powerful 9th level spells that alter bloodline
derivation very, very difficult is a good idea, but absolutely impossible
based on nothing more than the distinction between PC and NPC? That
doesn`t seem sensible to me.

Gary

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Lord Eldred

08-19-2002, 02:02 AM

Gary I agree with a lot of what you say. However, on the tighmaevril issue, if you let a PC have the knowledge to create them you could significantly change the balance of power in the blooded world. I think the creators limited the creation of tighmaevril for that very reason. In my campaign, the knowledge of how to create such a weapon has long been lost!

geeman

08-19-2002, 07:26 PM

At 04:02 AM 8/19/02 +0200, Lord Eldred wrote:

> Gary I agree with a lot of what you say. However, on the tighmaevril
> issue, if you let a PC have the knowledge to create them you could
> significantly change the balance of power in the blooded world. I think
> the creators limited the creation of tighmaevril for that very reason. In
> my campaign, the knowledge of how to create such a weapon has long been lost!

Popular opinion will probably be against me on this one, but tighmaevril
weapons being created by a limited number of characters in a BR campaign
wouldn`t be the end of things IMO. First, it would depend on the cost of
creating such a weapon. If it was high (in XP and/or GB and/or RP) then
that could be a balancing force against scads of them being made. There`s
probably a reason why only a dozen or so such weapons were created in the
first place. Second, owning/using tighmaevril is a significant thing, but
I don`t think PCs with such a weapons would be more than some of the
"standard" magic items in the DMG. A +1 tighmaevril longsword or a <insert
item of your choice here>?

Creating tighmaevril is a lost art IMC too, and I`ve never had a player say
they wanted to go about recreating such weapons, but if they wanted to I
wouldn`t mind making such knowledge the purpose of a campaign`s series of
adventures. The end result would be that the PCs would probably not gain
much more than a "typical" reward for such a campaign (reference things
like the Rod of Seven Parts adventure) and the creation of tighmaevril
weapons would be costly enough that they couldn`t go about arming a company
of elite infantry, but I wouldn`t be opposed to the idea automatically.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Lord Eldred

08-21-2002, 02:22 AM

I suppose you could create two different adventure links here. One would be the PCs suspect that someone is trying to create such a weapon or has the ability to create them and they feel the need to move in and prevent the spread of such weapons. Two they wish to find the way to do it themselves creating many mini adventures!

Birthright-L

09-04-2002, 11:56 AM

<< the fact that there is a special monster awnsheglien does not mean that
"normal" monsters of that kind do not exist.
For example there are hundreds of kraken in the seas in coincidence with
the "anwsheglien kraken". the same could be true for a vampire, maybe
there are some in the shadowworld.
>>

If monster counterparts to the awnsheighlien with the same did not exist,
how could the awnsheighlien ever gotten his name? If there were no gorgons,
how could Raesene ever be called the Gorgon? If there were no vampires, how
could Britter Kalt ever be called the Vampire? If there were no swords or
hawks, there would be no Swordhawk.
Ergo, if the monster does exist, the awnsheighlien cannot have its name,
therefor if an awnsheighlien exists with a monster`s name, that monster
must exist as well.
QED.

Hope that helps. :)

- the Falcon

---------------------------------------------
"Oh no, I won`t let bugbears break our hearts
Don`t be scared now, you`ll be safe
I won`t let goblins take you away"
- The Crash, "Polar"

"I`ve got the Dungeon Master`s Guide
I`ve got a 12-sided die
I`ve got Kitty Pryde and Nightcrawler too
Waiting there for me, yes I do - I do"
- Weezer, "In The Garage"
---------------------------------------------

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Birthright-L

09-04-2002, 12:30 PM

the Falcon wrote:

< Ergo, if the monster does exist, the awnsheighlien cannot have its name,
> therefor if an awnsheighlien exists with a monster`s name, that monster
> must exist as well.
> QED.<

Sorry, but I don`t buy that. According to your logic, we would`ve never
heard of dragons, vampires, gorgons in our real world. You have to remember
that, in addition to accurate knowledge and real life experience, you`ll
always find legends, myths, fairy tales and half-truths wherever human
beings gather. An awnsheighlien may as well have gotten his name from such a
source as from an existing creature.
Therefore, the decision to include an awnsheighlien`s namesake creature in
BR is still up to the DM.

Christoph Tiemann

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Birthright-L

09-06-2002, 07:05 AM

the Falcon <M.M.Richert@ITS.TUDELFT.NL> wrote at 02-09-04 13.31:

> If monster counterparts to the awnsheighlien with the same did not exist,
> how could the awnsheighlien ever gotten his name? If there were no gorgons,
> how could Raesene ever be called the Gorgon? If there were no vampires, how
> could Britter Kalt ever be called the Vampire? If there were no swords or
> hawks, there would be no Swordhawk.
> Ergo, if the monster does exist, the awnsheighlien cannot have its name,
> therefor if an awnsheighlien exists with a monster`s name, that monster
> must exist as well.

My take on this is that the original awnsheighlien has "offspring" (which
need not be children, merely created in it`s image) that roughly correspond
to the standard monsters. So THE Vampire has ordinary vampires serving him,
THE Chimera has sired ordinary chemeas and so on.

But these monsters did not exist before the awnsheighlien on whose pattern
they are formed.

Also notice that I give these lesser cmonsters a bllodline strength, so you
can comitt bloodtheft while out hunting monsters. This makes monster-hunting
into a very important royal duty.

/Carl

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Birthright-L

09-10-2002, 11:59 AM

<< Sorry, but I don`t buy that. According to your logic, we would`ve never
heard of dragons, vampires, gorgons in our real world. You have to remember
that, in addition to accurate knowledge and real life experience, you`ll
always find legends, myths, fairy tales and half-truths wherever human
beings gather. An awnsheighlien may as well have gotten his name from such a
source as from an existing creature.
Therefore, the decision to include an awnsheighlien`s namesake creature in
BR is still up to the DM.
>>

Aw, come on - this is D&D. If a D&D source book even says that "It is
rumored that ...", then 9 out of 10 times it is the truth. With D&D
monsters rumored to exist, this even goes up to 100%. :)

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Birthright-L

09-11-2002, 06:27 AM

the Falcon wrote:
[> << You have to remember
> that, in addition to accurate knowledge and real life experience, you`ll
> always find legends, myths, fairy tales and half-truths wherever human
> beings gather. An awnsheighlien may as well have gotten his name from such
a
> source as from an existing creature.
> Therefore, the decision to include an awnsheighlien`s namesake creature in
> BR is still up to the DM.
> >>]

>>> Aw, come on - this is D&D. If a D&D source book even says that "It is
> rumored that ...", then 9 out of 10 times it is the truth. With D&D
> monsters rumored to exist, this even goes up to 100%. :)<<<

I agree whole-heartedly, with regard to source books. That most rumors in
D&D tend to be true (in stark contrast to RL) may have to do with the fact
that it`s already hard enough to come up with a good adventure idea. Wasting
an idea with potential on a red herring is something most DMs would rather
avoid.

Nevertheless, there is no inherent logic that a certain type of monster has
to exist, because an awnshegh (got the singular right at last) shares the
same name. As BR is a setting where magic is rare, some DMs might wish to
limit the number of mythical creatures that can be found in Cerilia as well
(or maybe they just hate a certain kind of monster). I still don`t see any
obligation for them to include any monster an awnshegh might be named
after.:)

Christoph Tiemann

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Starfox

09-11-2002, 07:33 AM

Christoph Tiemann <tiemach@UNI-MUENSTER.DE> wrote at 02-09-11 05.14:

> That most rumors in D&D tend to be true (in stark contrast to RL) may have to
> do with the fact that it`s already hard enough to come up with a good
> adventure idea. Wasting an idea with potential on a red herring is something
> most DMs would rather avoid.

For me, this is also an important part of the fantasy genre. First, you hear
stories of the bad monster of the woods - then, almost inevitably, you
encounter it.

I like it. It makes the world seem fantastic. It is a sort of foreshadowing
that everyone was doing, way before Hollywood overused it.

/Carl

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

kgauck

09-12-2002, 07:05 AM

Actually, I prefer that most rumors be false. Lots of
the published hint material I regard as false rumors.
Generally, bad game ideas make good false rumors. Think
about what someone said somewhere else that you would
never want in your game, and that`s a fine false rumor.
The other kind of false rumor is the kind of thing that
would put characters in the wrong place with regard to
your scenario. Just make sure that false rumors are
always mouthed by NPC`s, because the DM ought not trick
players. NPC`s on the other hand, ought to trick PC`s.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com
> Christoph Tiemann <tiemach@UNI-MUENSTER.DE> wrote at 02-09-11 05.14:
>
> > That most rumors in D&D tend to be true (in stark contrast to RL) may have to
> > do with the fact that it`s already hard enough to come up with a good
> > adventure idea. Wasting an idea with potential on a red herring is something
> > most DMs would rather avoid.
>
> For me, this is also an important part of the fantasy genre. First, you hear
> stories of the bad monster of the woods - then, almost inevitably, you
> encounter it.
>
> I like it. It makes the world seem fantastic. It is a sort of foreshadowing
> that everyone was doing, way before Hollywood overused it.
>
> /Carl
>
> ************************************************** **************************
> The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
> Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
> To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
> with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Birthright-L

09-13-2002, 09:40 AM

<< Nevertheless, there is no inherent logic that a certain type of monster
has
to exist, because an awnshegh (got the singular right at last) shares the
same name. As BR is a setting where magic is rare, some DMs might wish to
limit the number of mythical creatures that can be found in Cerilia as well
(or maybe they just hate a certain kind of monster). I still don`t see any
obligation for them to include any monster an awnshegh might be named
after.:)
>>

At the same time, I still don`t see any reason for them *not* to include any
monster an awnshegh might be named after.
Besides that, your last sentence seems like a contradiction in terms
again, to me. If you admit that the awnshegh is named after a certain
monster, how can that monster not exist? :)

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Starfox

09-13-2002, 09:40 AM

the Falcon <M.M.Richert@ITS.TUDELFT.NL> wrote at 02-09-13 10.35:

> Besides that, your last sentence seems like a contradiction in terms
> again, to me. If you admit that the awnshegh is named after a certain
> monster, how can that monster not exist?

I support yor general idea that there certainly can exists monsters
patterned after the awnshegh, but the thext quoted here is not a good
argument.

Awnshegh are not "Named after" monsters - the name first appears in Cerillia
as the name of the awnshegh. The "naming after" is a metagaming thing -
since the players know what a chimera is, we[again the players]
automatically have a hunch what The Chimera is. That does not mean that
chimeras existed in Cerilia before The Chimera did.

/Carl

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Birthright-L

09-14-2002, 06:33 AM

Kenneth Gauck wrote:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kenneth Gauck" <kgauck@MCHSI.COM>
To: <BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM>
Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 6:29 AM
Subject: Re: Undead, Energy Drain and Bloodlines

>>> Actually, I prefer that most rumors be false. [snip]
> Generally, bad game ideas make good false rumors. Think
> about what someone said somewhere else that you would
> never want in your game, and that`s a fine false rumor.<<<

Generally, I agree with this statement, but whether rumors are entirely
false or partly true depends on the kind of rumor we`re talking about. When
you present a rumor to your players about a place or event (like `the
townsfolk tell you of an old ruin in direction X that is infested by Y`) and
they go chasing after it, you have to confront them with something, making
the rumor at least partly true (There is indeed something out there). Mostly
I prefer to present rumors as alternatives, similar to the way they`re often
described in the BR rule books (e.g. there are several explanations for the
spells of the Sons of the Serpent, nobody knows for sure what Mad Maeve is
up to and everyone will tell you something different). The truth of course
may be something entirely different.

One of the best uses for rumors I found so far was to let players choose the
directions they want to follow. When I`m short for ideas of my own I can
usually find several suitable published adventures that I could work into
the Campaign with little difficulty. I can then present the players with
rumors that lead in different directions. This has two advantages. First the
players can choose which path to follow (this is more important I guess with
non-regent campaigns, as most regent players should and often do come up
with ideas of their own). Second the players get the feeling that the game
world is alive, that things happen that are beyond their sphere of
influence. Hm, on second reading this sounds rather obvious, but anyway here
it is.

> The other kind of false rumor is the kind of thing that
> would put characters in the wrong place with regard to
> your scenario. Just make sure that false rumors are
> always mouthed by NPC`s, because the DM ought not trick
> players. NPC`s on the other hand, ought to trick PC`s.
>
Here I agree wholeheartedly. Any PC who takes a rumor for the truth and
prepares accordingly deserves what he gets.

Christoph Tiemann

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Birthright-L

09-16-2002, 12:15 PM

<< Awnshegh are not "Named after" monsters - the name first appears in
Cerillia
as the name of the awnshegh. The "naming after" is a metagaming thing -
since the players know what a chimera is, we[again the players]
automatically have a hunch what The Chimera is. That does not mean that
chimeras existed in Cerilia before The Chimera did.
>>

Then why call it *the* Chimaera, and not just Chimaera? In Greek mythology
Medusa`s just plain "Medusa", and not *the* Medusa. She`s *a* Gorgon,
though. If the monsters are named after the awnshegh, or there are no
equivalent monsters, I don`t think the awnshegh would be referred to as
*the*, but simply as.
Or is that not a valid train of thought?

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

kgauck

09-16-2002, 01:07 PM

----- Original Message -----
From: "the Falcon" <M.M.Richert@ITS.TUDELFT.NL>
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 6:30 AM

> Then why call it *the* Chimaera, and not just Chimaera? In Greek mythology
> Medusa`s just plain "Medusa", and not *the* Medusa. She`s *a* Gorgon,
> though. If the monsters are named after the awnshegh, or there are no
> equivalent monsters, I don`t think the awnshegh would be referred to as
> *the*, but simply as.
> Or is that not a valid train of thought?

Medusa was a Gorgon`s name. She also had sisters. Perhaps if she were
unique she would be more commonly refered to as the Gorgon, rather than a
Gorgon, since "the" is the definite article. Danita Kusor is the Chimaera`s
name. It is because she is unique that she is refered to with the definite
article, "the".

But such grammatical ramblings really have no limit on which creatures the
DM chooses to place in his campaign and which he rejects. Its a choice not
limited by or determined by the names selected for the abominations.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.